Case Number: BC715189 Hearing Date: January 21, 2020 Dept: 28

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One)

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On July 24, 2018, Plaintiffs Alex Iraheta and Yanela Hernandez Antunez (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Walter Timmons Enterprises, Inc, dba Timmons of Long Beach, Daniel Torres Costa, and Noel Amoroso. The complaint alleges motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on June 1, 2017.

On August 21, 2018, Defendants/Cross-Complainants Walter Timmons Enterprises, Inc, dba Timmons of Long Beach, and Daniel Torres Costa filed a cross-complaint against Defendant/Cross-Defendant Noel Amoroso seeking indemnity, contribution, apportionment, and declaratory relief.

On September 7, 2018, Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Noel Amoroso filed a cross-complaint against Defendants/Cross-Complainants/Cross-Defendant Walter Timmons Enterprises, Inc, dba Timmons of Long Beach, and Daniel Torres Costa seeking total and/or partial indemnity.

December 19, 2019, Plaintiffs filed motions to compel Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Noel Amoroso’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.

Trial is set for June 30, 2020.

PARTIES’ REQUESTS

Plaintiffs asks the Court to compel Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Noel Amoroso’s response to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) because he failed to serve timely responses.

Plaintiffs also ask the Court to impose $7,309.95 in monetary sanctions against Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Noel Amoroso and his counsel of record for abusing the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905–906.)

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

On August 13, 2018, Plaintiff Alex Iraheta served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) on Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Noel Amoroso by U.S. mail. (All Three Declarations of Mario E. Martinez (“Martinez Decl.”), ¶ 6, Exh. 2.) Plaintiff Alex Iraheta granted one extension, providing an ultimate deadline for the outstanding discovery responses to be served by November 18, 2019. (Martinez Decl., ¶ 9, Exh. 5.) No responses have been received as of the signing of Mario E. Martinez’s declarations on December 18, 2019. (Martinez Decl., ¶ 10.)

Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Noel Amoroso seeks relief pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). This relief is more properly sought after the granting of Plaintiff Alex Iraheta’s motions.

The Court finds the motion is properly granted. Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) were properly served on Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Noel Amoroso and he failed to serve timely responses. Additionally, there is no evidence showing Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Noel Amoroso acted with a substantial justification of that there are circumstances showing an imposition of sanctions would otherwise be unjust. Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Noel Amoroso’s counsel argues he did not serve the responses due to an inadvertence. This bare declaration is insufficient to refrain from imposing sanctions.

Plaintiff Alex Iraheta’s request for $7,309.95 in monetary sanctions is unreasonable. The motions are straight-forward and nearly duplicative. Rather, the Court finds $750 to be a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Noel Amoroso and his counsel of record for their abuse of the discovery process. Sanctions cannot be awarded in favor of Plaintiff Yanela Hernandez Antunez because she did not propound the underlying discovery.

CONCLUSION

The motions are GRANTED.

Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Noel Amoroso is ordered serve verified responses without objections to Plaintiff Alex Iraheta’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (Set One) on Defendants within 20 days of this ruling.

Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Noel Amoroso and his counsel of record are ordered to pay Plaintiff Alex Iraheta $750 within 30 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff Alex Iraheta is ordered to give notice of this ruling.